![](//blog.wenxuecity.com/images/pixel_trans.gif) |
A recent Times article described how China is stepping up efforts to lure home the top Chinese scholars who live and work abroad. The nation is already second only to the United States in the volume of scientific papers published, and it has, as Thomas Friedman pointed out, more students in technical colleges and universities than any other country. But China’s drive to succeed in the sciences is also subjecting itsresearch establishment to intense pressure and sharper scrutiny. And asthe standoff last week between Google and China demonstrated, the government controls the give and take of information. How likely is it that China will become the world’s leader inscience and technology, and what are the impediments to creating aresearch climate that would allow scientists to thrive?
Hard Sciences Require Freedom, TooGordon G. Chang is the author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and a columnist at Forbes.com. China’s one-party state cannot produce world-class historians,economists, political thinkers or even demographers. Beijing’sincreasing demand for obedience smothers creativity in many of thesocial sciences and “soft” disciplines. Wide swaths of biology, for instance, are considered sensitive because the regime promotes dubious racial theories. But can the country nurture scientists, doctors and innovators oftechnology? Beijing is making a big effort to do so. Recently, manypatriotic Chinese are returning to build their careers in hardsciences. Western analysts reason that the flow of talent must meanthat China has turned a corner. In one sense it has. China is an increasingly modern society,perhaps the world’s most dynamic nation. Yet its government remainslargely unreformed, and important impediments to scientific advancementremain. First, there is the Communist Party’s orthodoxy. Wide swaths ofbiology, for instance, are considered sensitive because the regimepromotes dubious theories of ethnicity and race. Beijing, unfortunately, talks about the Hans as a majority grouping,but it is a made-to-order ethnicity with an important politicalpurpose. Woe to the scientist who sets out to study China’s origins. Second, Hu Jintao, the current supremo, has reinvigorated Marxistinstruction in schools and universities. At the very least, incessantcampaigns are a distraction from real research and study. Every monthspent on understanding “the primary stage of socialism” or “theimportant thought of the Three Represents” is one fewer month devotedto the periodic table or sub-atomic particles. Of course, the newideological indoctrination stifles free thinking across the board. Third, China’s schools are deeply flawed. Plagiarism and corruption,for one thing, are rampant and probably getting worse. In December, twouniversity researchers were found to have faked data in 70 paperspublished in 2007. Incredibly, the pair received wide support acrossChina as many argued that the country’s bureaucratic educational systemencourages the forgery of data and the production of low-qualitypublications. Such a system, it is safe to say, does not promotescientific breakthroughs. Finally, it is ironic — and a bit sad — that Beijing is trying toencourage science while it is tightening censorship of media and theInternet, forcing Google out of the country by attempting to cripple its operations, and issuing rules that will cut off access to Web sites that have not registered with the authorities, potentially disconnecting China from the Internet. Shutting off China from the world, which is the effect of many ofthe central government’s recent actions, is not going to help make thecountry a leader in science or technology. Continue Reading
A Climate for MisconductCong Cao is a researcher with the Neil D. LevinGraduate Institute of International Relations and Commerce at the StateUniversity of New York and the author of “China’s Scientific Elite” and “China’s Emerging Technological Edge: Assessing the Role of High-End Talent.” China’s ambition to become an innovation-oriented nation by 2020 (as outlined in its Medium and Long-Term Plan for the Development of Science and Technology: 2006−2020), will be significantly impeded if it does not make effort eradicating misconduct in science. The pressure for “visible” outcomes encourages academic fraud and corruption. Recently, Lancet and Nature,two leading international science journals, published editorialscommenting on a case in which scientists at Jinggangshan University inChina were caught fabricating some 70 papers submitted to Acta Crystallographica Section E. The case is just the tip of the iceberg of academic frauds in China.According to the China Association for Science and Technology, theChinese equivalent to the American Association for the Advancement ofScience, more than half of the Chinese scientists who responded to its recent survey indicated that they were aware of incidents of misconduct involving their colleagues. The rising scientific misconduct in China can be attributed toseveral factors, including the pursuit of promotion and other materialrewards, the lack of autonomy in the research community, and societalinfluences. In China, academic credentials mean significant economic benefitsand sometimes political opportunities. For instance, an elitemembership in the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academyof Engineering is a stepping-stone for controlling resources and forgaining material privileges equivalent to those of a vice governor.With so much emphasis on a higher professional title, no wonder somescientists have risked being caught for fraud. The campaign for more international publications, especially injournals included in the Science Citation Index, a bibliometricdatabase compiled by Thomson Reuters, has an unintended consequence —institutions of learning have placed more emphasis on quantity, andassessed, promoted and rewarded their scientists accordingly. When ascientist has difficulty fulfilling the required quantity for theposition legitimately, he or she is likely to divide the research into“the least publishable unit,” or even take a detour. Institutional expectations for Chinese scientists have mounted,especially when the Chinese government has in recent yearssignificantly increased its investment in research and development. Thepressure for “visible” outcomes or even a Nobel Prize in science in 20years has further fueled this growing misconduct. The institutional watchdog responsible for exposing, investigatingand punishing deviance cases exits on paper only, largely because ofthe lack of the autonomy in the scientific community. And it isextremely difficult, if not impossible, to expose misconduct committedby high-profile scientists, because of the interference from both theinvolved people and the political leadership who make them pre-eminentin the first place. Thus, those being punished are most likely smallflies, while the big tigers are usually untouched, which has terrifyingand lasting consequences. Finally, China’s research community adapts to an environment inwhich the influence of commercialism has been powerful and thebureaucracy has become seriously corrupt. Therefore, it is hard toconclude whether the corruptive society has caused more frauds inscience, or whether the misconduct in the scientific community happensto take place in a society experiencing problems amid dramatic changes. Continue Reading
Can Quantity Lead to Quality? John Kao, the chairman and founder of the Institute for Large Scale Innovation,has been an adviser to many organizations involved in developinginnovation strategies and capabilities. A former Harvard BusinessSchool professor, he is the author of “Jamming” and “Innovation Nation.” The drama of China’s continuing progress in the sciences will be based on its ability to translate quantity into quality. China’s current practices of central planning reveal an industrial nostalgia rather than an ethos for innovation. What does this mean? China is now pursuing what I call a “bruteforce” strategy in creating many new institutions of higher educationthat in turn will produce a large number of new scientists andengineers. The underlying assumption seems to be that quantity willlead to quality; in other words, world class achievement will emergewhen the “installed base” of talent reaches a critical mass. In this approach, the Chinese certainly have the law of largenumbers on their side; the high end of the Chinese bell curve is amountain of talented people. Thus, it seems inevitable that brute forcequantity will eventually lead to “premium quality” measured in suchterms as scientific breakthroughs and Nobel Prizes. However, to attain quality, China will also have to master theskills of nurturing talent and supporting creative culture. China’scurrent practices of central planning and quotas for patents andpublications reveal an industrial nostalgia rather than an innovationeconomy ethos that embraces creative leaps and serendipity. There isalso the question of whether China can create a comprehensiveinnovation system that marries its growing prowess in science andtechnology to related fields such as entrepreneurship, design andsocial innovation that are essential for realizing the value ofscientific achievement. Meanwhile, China continues to build its talent engine, and to theextent that it is perceived as a place for creating wealth, for findingacademic opportunity as well as research funding, talent will flowthere in increasing numbers. This blending of indigenous and importedtalent will be another modality by which quantity is translated intoquality within the Chinese system. Continue Reading
Many Reasons to ReturnVivek Wadhwa is a visiting scholar atUniversity of California, Berkeley, senior research associate atHarvard Law School and director of research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. Follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa. When I joined Duke University’s Masters of Engineering Management programin 2005, nearly all of the graduating Chinese students told me theyplanned stay in the U.S. for at least a few years. Most said theywanted to make America their new home. Anti-immigrant policies in the U.S. and a booming economy in China are causing highly skilled workers to go home. Indeed, according to the National Science Foundation, “stay” ratesfor Chinese Ph.D.’s have hovered around 90 percent for the last twodecades. Now when I talk to my Chinese students, most are buying one-way tickets home. When my team at Duke, Berkeley and Harvard surveyed 229students from China during October 2008, we found that only 10 percentwanted to stay permanently. Fifty-two percent believed that the bestjob opportunities were in China, and 74 percent thought the best dayslay ahead for the Chinese economy. Add to this the anti-immigrant hysteria which is building in theU.S. Senate (new legislation has been proposed to restrict visas forforeigners) and a booming economy in China, it is no wonder they’reheaded home. There are no hard numbers available on the numbers ofreturnees to China, but anecdotal evidence indicates that tens ofthousands have already returned and larger numbers will return homeover the next few years. When you visit the research labs of multinationals in China and meetlocal entrepreneurs, you notice that top positions are filled byreturnees. They are bringing home valuable knowledge about Westernmarkets and experience in creating innovative technologies. And theyare telling their friends still in the U.S. how good things are backhome. In another surveyof 637 returnees to China conducted from March to September 2008, weasked how they had fared since returning home. Seventy-two percent saidthey were doing better professionally. The percentage in seniormanagement slots increased from 9 percent in the U.S. to 36 percentwhen they returned. Seventy-seven percent valued the opportunity to beback with their family and friends. Everything wasn’t rosy: Returnees complained of pollution, reverseculture shock, inferior education for children, frustration withexcessive bureaucracy and health-care quality. The bottom line is thatthe U.S. is providing China a huge amount of foreign aid without evenrealizing it. We’re exporting engines of economic growth and helpingthem become our long-term competitors. Continue Reading
The Stem Cell ExampleJonathan Morenois a professor of medical ethics, history and sociology of science atthe University of Pennsylvania. He is a senior fellow at the Center forAmerican Progress. Whether China can succeed in reversing the brain drain, especiallyin cutting edge areas like stem cell research, will depend on more thanraw government investment in human capital like young scientists andmaterial assets like labs. Although the centralized Chinese state hasundeniable advantages, transparency remains the oxygen of efficientscience. The U.S. should emphasize scientific exchange through personal relationships. Even before the recent dust-up between Google and the Chinesegovernment, I found access to Web sites about such seemingly innocuoustopics as U.S. research standards blocked during a recent visit to aBeijing campus. Still more challenging for China will be to develop into a trustedplayer in the competitive and skeptical global community of lifescientists. Investment in basic research lags well behind efforts toproduce clinical applications. Private treatment centers offer dubiousstem cells to desperate patients without adequate oversight. But there is no denying that China is becoming an ever more important player in regenerative medicine. A recent analysis by a group from the University of Toronto indicates that China published 20 times as many stem cell scientific papers in 2008 as it did in 2000. Chinese labs have produced at least 25 human embryonic stem cell lines and perhaps as many as 70. The stem cell example is a window into Chinese advances in biology.China is now second in published papers on the biomedical sciences,according to a report released on Friday by the National Science Foundation. The U.S. lead is partly due to China’s decision to focus more on its chemical industry, but the long-term trend is clear. In response, the Obama administration is working on new public-private partnerships in STEMeducation, has set a goal to raise R&D investment to 3 percent ofgross domestic product (from 2.68 percent currently), and is developinga framework to revitalize U.S. manufacturing as part of aninnovation-based economy. In the short term, the U.S. should build on the advantages of anopen society by emphasizing scientific exchange through personalrelationships. Recent improvements in the visa system will help. In myexperience, the new generation of Chinese scientists is intenselyinterested in intellectual property (though I’m not sure theyappreciate the irony); we should invest in our patent system to ensuretimely and valid awards. Our continued leadership in science might turnpartly on these intangibles. Continue Reading
Strengths From the TopGang Xiao, a professor of physics and engineering, is the director of the Center for Nanoscience and Soft Matter at Brown University.He graduated from Nanjing University in China and has been a visitingprofessor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. China faces promise as well as challenges in its goal to becoming aleader in innovation. Its strengths derive from a strongly supportivecentral government while its weaknesses lie at the local levels. The government is adaptable to new ideas, but rigid hierarchies and limits on information are obstacles. The government has the determination, plans and resources to recruittop talent. During the current economic downturn, a new initiativecalled “A Thousand-Person Plan” was formulated and implemented, torecruit thousands of Chinese scholars abroad in science, engineeringand enterprises. These scholars can receive compensation equal to theirsalaries abroad, and significant amounts of research funding that oftenexceed what they may receive abroad. China has the ability to achieve its goals because it has often doneso once it determines that these objectives are imperative to itsfuture. The government is very adaptable to new ideas and practicesthat it deems necessary. And when necessary, China is efficient inallocating resources and implementing effective policies. In reality, obstacles abound. Scholars fresh from abroad canexperience cultural shock in dealing with the established hierarchy inthe research community, which is often based on seniority and closelyknit networks. Subjective factors often trump objective standards ininternal and local evaluation processes, resource allocation and grantapplication. |
![](//blog.wenxuecity.com/images/pixel_trans.gif) |